Contract Testing: Regenerate API Token

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool destructive and non-idempotent. The description's 'rotate' clarifies that this is a token rotation rather than a general update, but it doesn't disclose that the old token stops working, whether special permissions are required, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the purpose in one sentence. The 'Toolset' line and parameter list add minor context but largely duplicate the name and schema, so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter destructive action it is mostly usable, but with no output schema it omits important detail: whether the new token value is returned, and what consequences occur after rotation. It also doesn't point to a sibling like list_api_tokens for finding tokenId.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter section only repeats the schema's tokenId description. It adds no new semantics (e.g., where to find token IDs or format expectations), so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Regenerate (rotate)') and a concrete resource ('API token by ID'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It adds 'by ID' to disambiguate selection from list/create/delete token tools, and is not a mere restatement of the title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, such as 'use when a token is compromised/expired' or 'call list_api_tokens to obtain tokenId.' The use case is only implied by the verb 'regenerate'; there are no exclusions or alternatives named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.